Commons Sitting of 13 February 1818

PETITIONS FROM JOSEPH MITCHELL, THOMAS EVANS, WILLIAM OGDEN, JOHN STEWART, AND WILLIAM BEN-BOW, COMPLAINING OF THE OPERATION OF THE HABEAS CORPUS SUSPENSION ACT.
Mr. Bennetsaid, he held in his hand a Petition from one of those unfortunate men who had suffered so much severity and real cruelty under the Suspension act. It was from Joseph Mitchell, of Liverpool. He was in that situation which had been said to render men un-worthy of credit. He had beyond all question suffered imprisonment without indictment or trial, but whether he was therefore unworthy of credit he would leave to others to determine. He most certainly believed the representations of harsh usage, unauthorized cruelty, and wanton treatment in the petition to be true. The facts were such as claimed the most serious attention of the House, and the prayer of the petition called upon them not to pass a bill of indemnity to screen ministers from the consequences of their abuse of the powers intrusted to them. Mr. Bennet having moved, that the petition be printed, the chancellor of the exchequer asked, if the hon. member could state that it was couched in respectful language? Mr. Bennet, said, that there might be a harsh expression, but the tenor of the petition was respectful.
The petition was then ordered to be printed. It set forth:
"That the Petitioner, whilst attending on his business as agent to several publishers, had, on the evening of the 2nd of March 1817, his lodgings in Manchester forcibly entered, his bed-room searched for his person and papers, and his portmanteau attempted to be opened by false keys and picklocks, by Joseph Nadin, deputy constable of Manchester, and two of his men called runners; that the peti-
400
tioner being informed of this nocturnal visit by a person who happened to be in the house at the time, and heard the landlord threatened with the loss of his licence if he informed the petitioner thereof, the petitioner, having a wife and six young children to provide for, sought refuge in the house of a friend; that the petitioner was driven from this retreat by Nadin and his assistants, who forcibly entered his friend's house in the night, and searched the same; and in this manner was the petitioner driven from house to house, Nadin threatening he would have him locked up in prison if it cost him (Nadin) 500 l.; thus was he pursued until the 9th of March, when he left Manchester to seek a resting place in the country, but being still pursued he fled to his disconsolate family in Liverpool; that the petitioner had not remained many days with his agonized family before he was informed that the police were about to search his house, and fearing that the shock occasioned by his being dragged from home in the dead of the night (that being the time generally chosen for tearing reformers from their beloved families) would be too great for an afflicted wife, and six young but affectionate children to bear, he therefore again sought an asylum in the country; that the petitioner, having returned in the vicinity of Manchester, was instantly informed that a number of persons had been apprehended at a public house in Manchester, charged with having conspired together for the purpose of destroying that town, many of which persons (if at all connected with such a plot) were believed to have been led and instigated thereto by spies and informers, who had gone about for the avowed purpose (as the petitioner was informed) of making Manchester, as' they called it, a second Moscow; that the petitioner, finding this to be no resting place for him, proceeded into, Yorkshire, where he was advised to proceed to London and state these facts, with the popular opinion thereon, to some men who were both able and willing if possible to trace these plots to their true source; that the petitioner whilst in London met with a person named Oliver, who professed to be a reformer, and who urged the petitioner to leave London with him, stating that the petitioner was in danger of being apprehended in London, and that he (Oliver) was in constant apprehension of being taken up, and that he had therefore de-

401
termined to leave the country, and was then going to Liverpool to see a friend of his set sail for America, and also to prepare a passage for himself and family, that the petitioner left London in company with the said Oliver on the 24th of April, who on the road requested the petitioner to introduce him to a few steady reformers in any of the towns through which they passed where the petitioner had any acquaintance, which he accordingly did, in Birmingham, Wakefield, and Leeds, believing him to be a real reformer; that on the 4th of May the petitioner was seized by two ruffians, who took him by the collar as he was walking on the highway towards Huddersfield, and commanded him to return to some men who (these) ruffians said) wanted him, which command the petitioner refused to comply with, asking them by what authority they stopped him on the king's highway? to which question they returning no answer, the petitioner attempted to proceed on his journey, when the ruffians, again seizing him by the collar, said, "We will let you see our authority;" that the petitioner was by them detained on the king's highway until five or six other men came up to them, who ordered him to go along with them; the petitioner then inquired by what authority they detained and ordered him to go along with them, when two of them said that they were special constables, and that the petitioner should know farther when he got to the place to which they intended to take him, adding, that, if the petitioner refused to go with them, they would compel him, bidding some of their fellows to drag him along; that the petitioner was therefore obliged to go with them to a public house, situated in a lonely place called Golker Hill, where he was taunted and otherwise abused through the whole of the evening; that when the petitioner retired to bed, a person was put into his room, who pretending to be a reformer, expressed much regret that it should have fallen to his lot to guard a person whom he could not but respect as a brother, and who exclaimed in bitter terms against those who were the cause of such unjust proceedings, adding, that not only a total change in Kings,' Castlereaghs, and Commons,' must take place, but that' all must be pulled down 'before any good would be done for the people,' which wretch the petitioner believes (as he then told him) was placed there for the purpose of leading the peti-
402
tioner into some violent expression, and the petitioner was confirmed in this opinion, by hearing another person cough behind the door, on which the petitioner demanded that this vile fellow should leave the room: that the petitioner was next day taken before justice Haigh, of Huddersfield, who on one Brooks of Golker Hill stating that the petitioner was a reformer, and had attended public meetings, and that a reward was offered by government for his apprehension, ordered him to be remanded; on the petitioner remonstrating against being detained on so vague a charge, the worthy justice replied, 'He' would take all responsibility upon himself,' and delivered the petitioner into the care of a police officer named Whitehead; that the petitioner was conducted by Whitehead into a room in the George-Inn, Huddersfield, where he asked the petitioner if he would pay for a person to guard him, on which the petitioner replied that he had neither the power nor the will to pay money for any such purpose; then Whitehead bade the petitioner to follow him to a lodging which he said was much better than the petitioner deserved; that the petitioner was then put into a place called Towzer, the most damp and nauseous dungeon imaginable, having no fire in it, the floor of which was nearly covered with human excrements, the bedding beyond description filthy, and the whole place was fœtid to such a degree that the petitioner scarcely thought it possible to exist therein until the next day; that the petitioner remained in this nauseous place twenty-six hours, after which he was removed to a room where Oliver appeared as a prisoner in great agitation; the petitioner was shortly removed to another house, where he was ironed, then placed between two thief-takers in a chaise and conveyed to Manchester Police-office, and thence to the New Bayley prison; that the petitioner, when in the police-office, and also in the New Bayley, demanded to be informed for what he was detained, and by what authority he had been apprehended, but no answer was given to him until the 7th of May, when the petitioner was brought before a number of gentlemen in a room belonging to the New Bayley, where one of them appeared to preside; here Nadin, the deputy constable, deposed that he had seen a warrant, signed (he doubted not) by the secretary of state, authorizing the apprehension of Mr. Mitchell on a charge of

403
high treason; that this warrant had been returned to the home office, because they had heard that the petitioner was gone to America; that the petitioner requested to know whether the gentleman who presided intended to keep him in custody on the mere deposition of Nadin? when he was informed that it was their intention to detain him until they heard farther from the home office; the petitioner then requested to withdraw to his cell and straw bed, which was granted, where he remained until about twelve o'clock on the night of the 8th of May, when he was ordered to prepare for London; during his confinement in the New Bayley, the petitioner was insulted with the felons allowance of food, and was told that Nadin had given orders that nothing else should be given to him; that the petitioner was then handcuffed, and so conducted to the police-office, thence to the coach, and was there very heavily ironed, which irons he bore all the way to London; being arrived there, the petitioner was taken to a public-house in Bow-street, and from thence before the secretary of state, who ordered him to be put into close confinement, until the 20th of May, when he was to be brought up for examination, as he understood; that the petitioner was then taken to Cold-bath-fields prison, and put into a room with another prisoner, where he became dangerously ill, through, as he supposes, the baneful effects of that pestilential place in which he was confined at Huddersfield: the petitioner wishes to state, that although he still feels the ill effects of that destructive place at Huddersfield, he considers his present state of health to be owing to the kind attentions of his fellow prisoner, the doctor, and the governor; that the petitioner was again taken before the secretary of state, who committed him to close confinement on suspicion of high treason; he was therefore remanded to Cold-bath-fields prison, where he remained in close and solitary confinement, except being visited by Oliver three successive days on or about the 21st, 22nd, and 23d of May, on each of which days the petitioner was fetched by a turnkey into a room in the governor's house, where his interviews with Oliver took place; that on the 30th of Dec. 1817, the petitioner was liberated, as he understood, without recognizance, until, on the 21st of January 1818, he was informed by the mayor of Liverpool, that he had received a letter from the home
404
secretary, which stated, that in consequence of his lordship having heard nothing against him since his liberation, his appearance on the first day of term in the court of King's-bench would be dispensed with, and hoping that his future conduct would be such as never to render it necessary to call him into a court of justice; that the petitioner, in consequence of the mayor's communication, deemed it necessary, though at a great and very inconvenient expense, to appear in the said court of King's-bench, in order to get such supposed recognizance nullified, that he might not in future be subjected to extraordinary penalties on the misrepresentations of malevolent or interested men; that the petitioner, though altogether unconscious of having violated, or intending to violate, any constitutional principle or law of the land, but who on the contrary has made considerable efforts to preserve the peace of the country and the lives of his much aggrieved countrymen, whom he considered in danger of being goaded on by hunger and by spies to acts of desperation; that, in consequence of the petitioner's unjust imprisonment, his business is totally ruined, himself involved in very considerable embarrassments, his character traduced, and his friends and connexions enormously imposed upon, by the misrepresentations of spies and informers, which spies and informers have introduced themselves to the petitioner's acquaintance under the pretence of collecting money for his or his family's use, and have otherwise so made use of his name to excite the more distressed parts of the labouring class to acts of violence whilst the petitioner was in prison; that the doors of his friends are shut against him, and himself precluded the possibility of providing for his helpless family through the common course of trade; that though the petitioner considers that the House furnished the ministers of the Crown with that power which they have so wantonly and unprovokedly used against him, in dragging him from his family and immuring him in a solitary dungeon 211 days, yet the petitioner trusting that such powers were granted for the wisest of purposes, implores that the House will not only refuse to give its sanction to a bill of indemnity, to screen those ministers who have abused the powers the House confided to them, but, as in times less oppressive, when the House interposed their powerful aid to

405
stop the torrent of unjust persecution, they will now so take the petitioner's case into their most serious consideration, as to grant him that redress which will enable him to bring to justice such individuals as have so incalculably injured him, and also enable him to meet his friends and connexions as he should have done had he not been so unjustly imprisoned; and the petitioner, forgetting the sorrows of a solitary imprisonment, will, as in duty bound, ever pray."
Mr. Bennetalso presented a Petition from Thomas Evans, of No. 8, Newcastle-street, Strand, setting forth;
"That the Petitioner solicits the car-nest attention of the House, to the grievous and illegal persecutions which he is about to detail, in full confidence that he is able to adduce undeniable proof of the correctness of every allegation, and in ardent hope that the House, as the constitutional guardian of public right, and avenger of individual oppression, will interpose their high authority to enable him to obtain plenary justice; that on the 18th of April, 1198, the petitioner was seized, pursuant to a warrant charging him with high treason, issued by the late duke of Portland, then one of his majesty's principal secretaries of state; that the petitioner was held under re-examination until the bill for suspending the Habeas Corpus act was passed, and was then committed, on pretence of treasonable practices, to the house of correction for Middlesex, from whence he was transported to the county gaol at Winchester, and again to that at Chelmsford, at which gaols he was treated with more rigour than the common felons, being denied, during the whole period of this long imprisonment, the use of books, or the possession of pen, ink, or paper, or the access of friends or relations; indeed so severe was the nature and so lengthened the duration of this unjust confinement, that after his liberation, the petitioner was frequently afflicted with a dropsical malady, or species of erysipelas in his limbs, which has greatly impaired his former excellent state of health, and sometimes rendered him an invalid eighteen months together; that on the day following his arrest, the wife of the petitioner, though far advanced in pregnancy, was, with their infant son, committed on the same false charge to the house of correction, amongst the female felons, from whence she was taken and examined before the lords of his ma-
406
jesty's most honourable privy council, through which nefarious artifice sufficient time having elapsed, she was, after enduring three days imprisonment, permitted to return to the petitioner's house, which she found had, during her absence, been filled with police officers of the lowest and most brutal kind, who had been sent thither to apprehend every person that might visit the house whilst they held unlawful possession, which supposed authority they had acted upon to the extreme, even inviting some of the friends of the petitioner into the house, in order to comprise them within their assumed jurisdiction; and the police officers, when they had satisfied themselves with the number of their seizures, had abandoned the house to whatever accident might have befallen it, had not the sister of the petitioner's wife fortunately arrived and prevented farther mischief by her presence; that at the end of two years and eleven months, the petitioner was liberated, without trial or any recompence for the manifold injuries he had sustained, and before he could proceed to obtain legal redress, the authors and inflictors of those injuries procured from parliament an especial act of indemnity for this and other similar abuses of their ministerial trust; so that thus ruined in property, debilitated in health, and calumniated in character, his profession reduced, his connexions broken up, and all the fruits of his previous industry dissipated, he found himself at length suddenly cast upon the world to maintain his family, under circumstances which seemed to forebode years of penury and privation; that the petitioner, since his liberation from this confessedly illegal imprisonment, had not taken any part in political affairs of any description, but had been sedulously engaged in the business which he had taken up, and from the labours of which for sixteen years he had never indulged in two successive days of recreation, his former persecution and unrequited losses having rendered the utmost industry and carefulness necessary on his part to provide for his declining years, and against the dangerous attacks of the incurable malady contracted in consequence of the rigour and closeness of his imprisonment; that the petitioner had succeeded, through his unremitting exertions, in establishing a manufactory of patent braces and spiral steel springs, to which he looked up as a secure shelter from the approaches of future distress, when, notwithstanding his

407
inoffensive conduct, he was again assailed in a manner equally as unjustifiable and malignant as his first persecution was acknowledged to have been, by the measures enacted to prevent the punishment of his oppressors; that early on Sunday the 9th of Feb. 1817, the petitioner and his only son were seized by a party of the police, led by John Stafford, who produced for his authority a warrant from viscount Sid-mouth, one of his majesty's principal secretaries of state, imputiag to them suspicion of high treason, and directing the captors to seize their private papers, which having been obtained, the petitioner and his son were conveyed to the police office, Bow-street, where they were furnished with breakfast, but not brought or examined before any magistrate; that the petitioner and his son were about noon conveyed to the office of the secretary of state for the home department at Whitehall, and put into a room with James Watson, Thomas Preston, John Keens, and John Castle, with whom they remained until the evening, when the petitioner was singly taken before the lords of his majesty's most honourable privy council, and informed that he had been arrested and stood charged on suspicion of high treason, which the petitioner immediately denied, pointing out to their lordships that the suspicion was wholly grounded on the assertion of lord Sidmouth, inasmuch as his lordship had not issued his warrant on the oath of any existing person; and the petitioner farther challenged lord Sidmouth, or any other person, to depose that he had committed any breach of the law whatever, nor was the petitioner then, or at any other subsequent time, questioned before their lordships or any other magistrate relative to any criminal misconduct on his part; that towards 11 o'clock at night, the petitioner was conveyed alone to the house of correction for the county of Middlesex, on his arrival at which place he instantly, in the presence of the king's messenger, demanded a copy of his commitment; he was then conducted to what are called the Staterooms, and lodged in one of them, in company with Thomas Curtis, a pardoned criminal, who had become an evidence for the Crown, and was then in custody to be forthcoming at the trials of some of his confederates; that on the 11th day of February and third of his confinement, the petitioner obtained permission to write at the office of the prison, where he drew
408
up a petition to the House, complaining of the outrage against the personal liberty of the petitioner and his son, perpetrated by lord Sidmouth, which petition, addressed to lord Cochrane or sir Francis Burdett, per favour of Samuel Brooks, esq. Strand, the petitioner the same morning delivered to Mr. William Adkins, the governor, to be sent according to its direction, but it was sent to Whitehall, and there detained, and in consequence it never was presented to the House; that the petitioner discovered, on his first interview with his wife after his incarceration, that this petition had not been presented to the House, on which the petitioner wrote to his solicitor, directing him to call at the office of lord Sidmouth, and demand that petition, or to procure an order for admission to the petitioner to receive another petition, or to sue out a writ of Habeas Corpus in order to bring the petitioner into court, that some definite legal accusation might be enforced, or his discharge obtained; that on the next interview with the secretary of state, the petitioner complained to his lordship of the detention of his petition at his office; his lordship however denied any knowledge of the circumstance, and stated he would order an inquiry, but on the petitioner meeting sir Nathaniel Conant below, sir Nathaniel, in the presence of Mr. Adkins, told the petitioner that 'the paper was in 'the office, and that any person might have it that called for it, but that he (sir Nathaniel) did not think himself a proper medium of communication between per-sons charged with high treason and sir F. Burdett;' a day or two following, on the 25th of Feb. sir Nathaniel forwarded this petition to the solicitor of the petitioner, accompanied with a note, stating similar reasons for its detention at his office; that on the 27th of Feb. the petitioner was visited by his solicitor, when the petitioner furnished him with a second petition, which was the same evening presented to the House by the hon. Henry Grey Bennet; that the petitioner was taken six times before the secretary of state at Whitehall, on each of which occasions the petitioner did invariably solicit, in the most earnest manner, to be confronted with his accuser, or that the act of treason sworn to should be named, which being invariably refused, the petitioner constantly challenged the pretended charge of high treason as false and unfounded, unsupportable by evidence, and

409
totally groundless in fact; and the petitioner moreover observed to their lordships, that he was held by mere arbitrary authority, inasmuch as no proceedings in Jaw had been instituted against him, nor could he be legally restrained from retiring from that office to his own home; that on the first five times of the petitioner's examinations (as they were improperly denominated) he was each time remanded to prison on commitments by lord Sidmouth and sir Nathaniel Conant, both stating that the petitioner was charged before them on oath, and during this period the petitioner was denied the possession of pen, ink, or paper, or intercourse with his friends, or the knowledge of public affairs, his lordship having assumed the power to dispose of the petitioner at his will and pleasure, although the laws for the security of personal freedom were then in full force; that on the sixth and last time of the petitioner's examinations, he was remanded on a commitment by lord Sidmouth only, the Habeas Corpus Suspension bill being then passed, in which commitment his lordship desisted from inserting the mention of any oath against the petitioner; that the petitioner, apprehensive that he would be detained for an indefinite length of imprisonment, did, on the 10th of April, deliver to Mr. Adkins, the governor of the. house of correction, a petition addressed to the lords of his majesty's most honourable privy council, praying, that if any legal charge had been preferred against him he might be liberated on bail, or investigation be instituted into his case forthwith, in order to enable him to prevent the utter ruin of his manufactory, and the reduction of his wife to extreme poverty; but in the afternoon of the same clay, the petitioner and his son (who had been kept separate from the petitioner since the first moment of his confinement) were removed to the Surrey county gaol, Horsemonger-lane, where they were again separated, the petitioner was put ill irons like a felon, and carried to one of the strong rooms or condemned dungeons, in which he remained till the 27th of July, in utter solitude, accommodated with a bag of chopped woollen rags for a bed, a tub in one corner for a water-closet, a pail to hold water, a tressel for a table, a chair, a chamber-pot, a stick for a poker, and a bit of an old tin pot for a shovel, the use of candle was prohibited, and fire ordered to be extinguished at dusk; the petitioner was moreover denied
410
the introduction of a box to hold his clothes, and his flute was taken away the instant of his arrival; that in the room beneath the petitioner's were confined three or four condemned criminals, whose lamentations, moans, and death-songs or hymns, till the day of execution, were so piercing and incessant, that the feelings excited in the petitioner in that dreary situation, altogether precluded him from enjoying any repose, and greatly aggravated his sufferings both personal and mental; that three magistrates visited the petitioner whilst he was ironed, and approved of his accommodation in every respect, unless the secretary of state should give contrary orders; the irons were however removed on the third day; that the petitioner was only allowed to have interviews with his wife through a grated door twice a week, in the presence of the turnkey, and the petitioner's wife was circumscribed to a single hour to visit the petitioner and his son, who was placed quite at the other end of the prison; that the petitioner in the month of June did petition the House for redress, in consequence of which he was visited by some members of the House, after whose visitation the petitioner was admitted to walk for exercise in a passage between two rows of cells, and he was allowed to have his musical instruments, a feather-bed was furnished, and the use of candles was permitted; that the petitioner learns, with astonishment and indignation, that some of the allegations of that petition were contradicted, for the petitioner assures the House, that there is no allegation in that petition which he is not prepared to prove at their bar to be strictly and literally true; that on the 27th of July, the petitioner was removed to the room of his son, who had been similarly ill treated during their separation; that throughout the period of the petitioner's recent imprisonment, with the exception of his wife, all his friends and relatives were prohibited from visiting him, notwithstanding his urgent solicitations to the contrary; that on the first day of this present month, the petitioner and his son were taken to the office of sir N. Conant at Whitehall, and there offered to be released on entering into resognizances in the sum of 100 l. each to appear in the court of King's-bench on the first day of the present term, and from day to day to answer to such matters and charges as should then and there be produced against

411
them, and not to depart the court without leave, with which conditions the petitioner and his son refused to comply, insisting upon being brought to trial for the offences imputed to them, or being discharged unconditionally; that the petitioner and his son were liberated on the evening of the 20th instant, by order of lord Sidmouth, without being required to enter into any acknowledgments, and without any compensation for this illegal, unmerited, and protracted persecution; that the petitioner particularly wishes to impress upon the attention of the House, that at each of his interviews with lord Sidmouth, between the period of his arrest and final commitment, the petitioner did uniformly insist upon being confronted with the person who was said to have made oath against him, but that no intreaty or demand could induce lord Sidmouth to comply with this just and legal request; and the petitioner consequently believes, that the pretended charge of high treason against himself and his son, was altogether a mere fabrication for the most wicked purposes, and that no person ever did make oath against them relative to any matter or thing which could warrant a suspicion of high treason; that the petitioner finds his business completely ruined, his future prospects overcast, and his character deeply injured by many false and scandalous rumours, originating from this persecution: he has been treated with the greatest indignity, cruelty, and injustice, for no assignable cause whatever, except the personal hostility of lord Sidmouth; the petitioner therefore prays that the House will institute an immediate inquiry into the allegations herein set forth, in order that the grievances of the petitioner may be fully redressed."
Sir M. Ridley,on the question being put, that the petition be printed, rose to protest against any precedent that might be established by the chancellor of the exchequer having asked, when the question of printing a former petition was put, whether it contained any thing disrespectful, as if a petition respectful enough to be laid upon the table were not respectful enough to be printed. The chancellor of the exchequer might put such a question before the petition was laid on the table, but every petition laid on the table was entitled to be printed.
Mr. C Wynnsaid, that petitions might be laid on the table which contained statements that might make it improper to
412
print them. It might be proper that the House should know their contents, and yet it might be improper to give them farther publicity. The House ought therefore to use its discretion as to printing a petition in each particular case.
Lord Folkestonethought the hon. member's argument went rather to show the propriety of printing all petitions. How-were the House to know the contents of a petition, if it was neither read by the clerk nor printed with the votes? What was the advantage of having a petition laid on the table, if it remained thus unread and unprinted He saw with surprise so many innovations introduced by those who made innovation one of their main arguments against the most important improvements. It was only since the last eight or nine months, that it became necessary to make a distinct motion for the printing of a petition. In his memory, every petition presented was printed at full length. They were gradually shortened; and at length, a particular motion became necessary for the printing of a petition at all. He had on a former occasion expressed his regret at this vote. It was a palpable injury to the people that every petition should not be printed, in order to come readily under the observation of the House; for they were only the servants, the representatives of the people. He should not, however, be surprised, although he should be sorry to find it ordered, that no petition be printed.
Mr. Bennetnext presented a Petition from William Ogden, of Manchester, Printer; setting forth,
"That the Petitioner is an old man, 74 years of age, with a large family dependent on him for support, and during his absence his wife solicited the overseers of Manchester for relief, but was rudely refused any, as he the said petitioner was an advocate for parliamentary reform, although he has paid the poor-rate in Manchester for thirty-six years, and by his two wives had seventeen children: he was seized, by a warrant from lord Sidmouth, on Sunday morning the 9th of March 1817. while in bed, the day before the meeting of the 10th; his house was rummaged, his property carried away, and all his papers, and though nothing was found but what was perfectly legal, he was committed to prison in solitary confinement, nor had he any meat allowed him from Sunday morning till Tuesday at three o'clock in the afternoon, when, on

413
complaint to col. Sylvester, the magistrate, he was ordered a three-penny pye, which was all the meat allowed him at that prison; he also informed the said magistrate that his shoes were broke, and not fit for such a journey, on which the magistrate said, "Get him a pair, Nadin, get him a pair;" but the catchpole replied, "Why did you not send for another pair?" to which the petitioner replied, "I have not always two pair, and did not know of marching orders;" but Nadin replied, "It's too late now," and over-ruled the colonel, as none were given the petitioner; he was then loaded with a manacle not less than thirty pounds weight, and treated in the most brutal manner by the constable, and Nadin his deputy, whom the petitioner has every reason to conclude was the informant against him; as he had for six weeks before declared to the petitioner personally, that if he did not discontinue his attendance at the public meetings, he would apprehend him; conscious of the rectitude of his conduct, the petitioner disregarded his rude threat; but before the meeting of the 10th of March commenced he was apprehended by the said Nadin, and therefore did not attend; on application to face any informant, the petitioner was treated indignantly by the ferocious Nadin, and immediately posted off; the ponderous irons the petitioner was loaded with broke his belly, and caused an hernia to ensue about eight o'clock in the evening, when going to bed, and it was impossible to alarm the gaoler; the petitioner remained in that dreadful state for more than sixteen hours in the most excruciating torture; on the turnkey appearing in the morning, two surgeons were sent for, who, after using such means as seemed to them necessary, found nothing would do but the knife, and apprehended, from the petitioner's age (seventy-four), he should die under the severe operation; the pain he endured was so great, that he insisted on that means being resorted to; they unwillingly commenced the operation, which continued for one hour and forty minutes; and, praised be God, and the skill of the surgeons, the petitioner survived it, contrary to the surgeons' expectation, but much debilitated in his constitution, and he is fearful he shall never be able to follow his employ as a printer; Mr. Dixon, the surgeon, and his partner, performed the operation in Horsemonger gaol, and can witness to the truth of this statement; the
414
wound in the groin of the petitioner was above seven inches in length, and Mr. Dixon had his entrails out of his belly in his fingers, like a link of sausages; Mr. Walters the governor was also there, and can speak to the fact here recorded; thus has an old man been torn from his family, and ruined in his business, by the base municipality of Manchester alone, who alone were the rioters, one of whom was a clergyman, the Rev. Mr. C. Ethelston; for the petitioner declares before God, who is both omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient, he had done no wrong, though he has suffered all this, and has been near nine months in solitary confinement, through the machinations of mean unworthy men, who have disgraced the very source that created them; the petitioner, therefore, humbly hopes that the House will not pass an act of indemnity so as to preclude him from seeking that redress his hard case merits, and that remuneration which he is in justice entitled to."
Sir Francis Burdettrose to present a petition of a similar nature. It was scandalous that so many innocent men should be seized and subjected to imprisonment. They had been arrested without a charge, confined and punished according to the pleasure of ministers, and most illegally discharged without an opportunity of proving their innocence and their sufferings. They had always pressed for a trial, but when the time came their accusers shrunk from such a test of their conduct.
The Petition was read. It was from John Stewart, weaver in Glasgow; setting forth,
"That the Petitioner was apprehended by the sheriff of Lanarkshire on the 22d of February last year, and put in prison, where he remained seven weeks and three days, when he was liberated on bail, without having been charged with any specific crime; that from the 22d till the 26th of the said month he continued in gaol without fire, candle, provisions, or even a bed to rest upon, in that cold and inclement season of the year; that his prison allowance was only 4s. 8d. per week, 2s. 6d. of which was expended in the articles of coals, candles, and other necessary things, leaving only 2s. 2d. to find him in weekly subsistence; that the petitioner has a wife and three children who suffered severely from the want of his labour and company, while the loss of work, the expense of a bail bond, and other charges connected with his confine-

415
ment and liberation, have reduced his circumstances and require redress; may it therefore please the House to take the above into serious consideration, and grant such redress as to them may seem meet."
Mr. Bennetpresented a petition from William Benbow, late of Manchester, setting forth,
"That the Petitioner on the 16th of May 1817, was arrested in the city of Dublin without apparent legal authority for that purpose, and detained in custody after examination for four days, without being able to obtain any information as to the cause of his arrest or detention in custody; that on the 20th of May 1817, the petitioner being still in custody, a messenger arrived from England, and rearrested him, by virtue of a warrant from lord Sidmouth, upon a pretended suspicion of high treason, and the petitioner was conveyed in irons from Dublin to London, and committed to the House of Correction in Cold Bath Fields, there to remain until delivered by due course of law; that the petitioner was then promised a fair trial, and that the list of witnesses intended to be brought against him, with whatever other information might be necessary, should be furnished him in due time; that the petitioner was confined for the space of eight months in the House of Correction as aforesaid, and treated with much unnecessary cruelty and insult, and exposed to much studied deprivation of those comforts that his situation required; the petitioner not being permitted to correspond freely even with his wife, the letters of the petitioner to his wife being detained by lord Sidmouth, and those of his wife to the petitioner by the gaoler of the House of Correction, as if it were necessary to add all the pain to the petitioner's miserable situation, of which his persecutors were capable; the petitioner's letters, or rather such of them as lord Sidmouth thought proper, were forwarded free of expense, this was not requested by the petitioner, but afterwards the petitioner was informed that no more correspondence could be franked for state prisoners; that the petitioner requested the secretary of state to furnish him with such necessaries as the deprivation of liberty prevented him from procuring for himself, when he was insulted by being told he might have such things as were provided for persons committed on felonious charges; that after eight months
‡
416
of such unmerited confinement and violent treatment, the petitioner was offered his liberation upon terms which he deemed himself bound to reject, as degrading, oppressive, unjust, and calculated to shield his persecutors from the consequences of their despotic conduct; that the petitioner therefore refused to accept his liberty upon any other than an unconditional discharge, and a full admission of the unnecessary violation of the laws which had taken place in his person; that the petitioner did receive such unconditional discharge on the 20th of this month, and after having been thus confined and ill-treated by his persecutors, is now discharged without trial, and thrown upon the world without means, at a distance of nearly two hundred miles from his home and family, without the least assistance to carry him thither, or to compensate in any way his losses and privations by such a wanton violation of the principles of justice, and the constitutional laws of the land; the petitioner therefore feels himself in duty called upon to lay his sufferings and his grievances before the House, and to call upon its honourable members for such redress as may become their regard for the liberty of the people, and the sanctity of the laws, both of which have been violated in the treatment experienced by the petitioner."
The Petitions were ordered to lie on the table, and be printed.

ELECTION LAWS AMENDMENT BILL.
The bill being recommitted,
Mr. Wynnsaid, he was not aware of the intention to propose any alterations in this bill, but if any such were intended, he should feel obliged if they were now brought forward, as the present was the most convenient stage for such discussion. In the clause excepting places which had no more than 150 electors, from the authority of magistrates to erect booths for polling, &c he himself proposed to move an alteration. Nothing could be more regular, he understood, than the mode of conducting elections in the city of London, where 8,000 electors were usually polled in eight days, and therefore he proposed to insert the exception of London in this clause, in addition to that of the universities of Oxford and Cambridge.
Mr. Lockhartadverted to the clause authorizing a returning officer to adjourn the poll to the next day, when any riot should take place to prevent the electors

417
from coming to the poll, and remarked, I that as it was proposed in the bill that if 400 voters had not been polled at the close of the second day, the election should finally close, the candidate likely to suffer from that decision might himself contrive to excite a riot, with a view to obtain time for the collection of votes. Such riot might, indeed, with the same view, be renewed day after day by the unsuccessful candidate, in order to harass his opponent. It also appeared from this clause, that the existence of the riot was limited to the place of polling, for wherever or however it occurred, the power of the returning officer to adjourn the poll was to be established. This he thought such a latitude of discretion as was but too liable to corruption. He had not any substitute to propose upon the points alluded to, but he felt it his duty to throw out these suggestions for the consideration of the author of the bill.
Mr. Wynnexpressed his readiness to attend to any suggestion from the hon. gentleman. But as to the discretion proposed to be granted to the returning officer, that, like every other degree of discretion at present belonging to that officer, was to be exercised, subject to the right of superintendence and revision on the part of that House, which right must always form a guard against the abuse of such discretion. With respect to the other point alluded to by the hon. gentleman, it would be admitted that a riot serving to prevent electors from coming to the poll, might happen at a distance from the place of polling, and it was to meet such a case that the clause under consideration was so constructed.
Mr. Lockhartobserved, that the only remedy which occurred to his mind at present was this, that upon the re-opening of the poll, after any adjournment, no elector should be allowed to vote, unless he swore that he had been previovsly obstructed or prevented by riot from coming to the poll.
Upon the provision that any candidate, against whom no poll was demanded, should be declared duly elected, although the poll should go on among other candidates.
Mr. Wynnobserved, that it was evidently a great hardship that a candidate, against whom no objection was made or poll demanded, should be subjected to the expense and trouble of an election, merely because there were other candidates, with
418
respect to whom a difference of opinion existed among the electors. To provide against such a grievance, this clause was proposed; but the committee would see that no evil could result from its adoption, because, if a poll were demanded by one elector, the declaration alluded to could not be made, and as there were few candidates who had not at least one enemy, it was not very probable that this provision would be often acted upon. If, however, only one case should occur, the benefit of this provision should in justice be extended to it. Of this clause, however, he was not so tenacious as of the other provisions of the bill.
After some farther conversation, the clauses were agreed to, and the Report ordered to be received on Monday.

REFORM OF PARLIAMENT.
Sir. F. Burdettpresented a petition from the inhabitants of St. George's, Hanover square. It began with expressing their conviction, in common with the whole kingdom, that the House did not in any intelligible or constitutional sense represent the people, that they were the instruments of a weak and contemptible administration, who had suspended the constitution of the country, and punished the people at their pleasure. It then proceeded to state, "that the petitioners would most certainly resist the payment of taxes, unless the prayer of their petition is complied with."
Lord Castlereaghrose to request the clerk to read the last sentence over again. This being done, he rose again amid the cheers of the House, to say that the language and spirit of the petition were neither respectful to the House, nor re-concileable with the laws and constitution of the country, he therefore moved that it be rejected.
Sir F. Burdettcontended, that as the petitioners were to resist the payment of taxes only in a legal manner, their petition ought to be received. It was the very principle and spirit of the constitution, that the people should pay no taxes but through their representatives. If, then, they were called upon to pay taxes which their representatives had not imposed, the constitution and laws] of the country should protect them from the payment of those taxes.
The petition was rejected without a division.

HIGH CONSTABLE OF WESTMINSTER.] (2 E)
Mr. Calcraft presented a Petition from William Lee, the High Constable of Westminster, praying for compensation for his attendance and that of his officers on the House of Commons, which was ordered to lie on the table. Mr. Calcraft gave notice that on Monday he would move that it be referred to the consideration of a committee.

EXCHEQUER BILLS BILL.
The report of this bill being brought up,
Mr. Tierneysaid he had a question to put to the chancellor of the exchequer, to which he felt it of great importance to obtain a definite answer. The right hon. gentleman had originally called for a grant of 39 millions by exchequer bills. He now was satisfied with a grant of thirty. What therefore he wished to know was, whether the sum of six millions to be paid to the Bank on the 5th of April next, was included in these 30 millions? In other words, would this grant meet the current expenses, and discharge the demand of the Bank?
The Chancellor of the Exchequerentertained no doubt that the sum now voted would cover every charge that could arise during the period in question, not excepting those payments to the Bank which the gradual liquidation of its claims would render necessary, and which he had before stated would be made in money.
Mr. Tierneydid not think it of much importance whether the six millions was repaid in one sum, or in various sums; but the answer of the right hon. gentleman induced him to ask whether the repayment would take place on or before the time specified in the act, which was, he believed, the 5th of April next.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that no part of this sum would he due until the 5th of April. Then the repayment would commence, and, as he said, would, for mutual convenience, be gradual.
Mr. Tierneysaid, he should suppose, that the convenience of the party to whom the money was to be paid, would be best consulted by liquidating the demand. But it was most important to the country that it should be repaid to the Bank at the time specified by law, because it went to afford to the Bank the facilities of meeting its engagements with the country, by paying its notes in cash. But what said the chancellor of the exchequer to night? That on the 5th of April the
420
payment of the six millions would take place?—No such thing—it would only commence. So that if the right hon. gentleman should think proper to pay the Bank a one-pound note, he would deem the enactment fulfilled. On a former evening he had congratulated himself on having at length pinned down the chancellor of the exchequer to something precise. But now they were wholly at sea again. Every thing definite that the right hon. gentleman had before stated relative to the payment of these six millions to the Bank, at the time specified, he had now knocked on the head. If there had been any arrangement between the right hon. gentleman and the Bank, in common candour why not state it? Then we should start fair. What he was now told satisfied him as to a rumour which he had that very day heard from persons conversant with these affairs, namely, that the repayment of these six millions to the Bank, as positively asserted by the chancellor of the exchequer, never was in contemplation. He was never able to comprehend what the right hon. gentleman was at. All persons who thought they understood the English language, fancied the other evening, that the right hon. gentleman said the Bank would be paid in money. Now, however, it appeared, that nothing of the kind was to take place. The best rule for hon. members would be, whenever they asked the right hon. gentleman a question, to wait a fortnight before they satisfied themselves that they completely apprehended his answer.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerwas persuaded that the right hon. gentleman was the only person in the House who understood him on a late occasion, in the way in which he had described. On that occasion the right hon. gentleman had asked him whether the six millions which would become due to the Bank on the 5th of April next, would be paid in exchequer bills or in money? His reply was, that it would be paid in money. But he had not said—indeed the question had not been asked him—that it would be so paid on any given day. His answer was simply to be understood in this sense—that government did not intend to renew the six millions in exchequer bills, but that at some period within the time specified by act of parliament, that sum would be paid to the Bank in money. He had not stated the precise time when it would be actually paid, but the want of the money could

421
in no way impede the resumption of cash payments by the Bank, abundant provision having been made in time with reference to that object.
Mr. Tierneyobserved, that holding in his hand an act of parliament which said that the six millions was to be repaid to the Bank on the 5th of April next, he had asked the right hon. gentleman opposite whether it was his intention to repay it in exchequer bills or in money? The right hon. gentleman had replied, in money. He certainly did then understand that it was to be so repaid in money on the day specified in the act. Such was the obtuseness of his intellect, that when he knew that money became due on the 5th of April, and when the right hon. gentleman told him that it was to be paid in money, he was fool enough to believe that it would be paid on that day [a laugh].
Mr. Sharpwished to ask, whether it was the intention of government to pay these six millions to the Bank of England before the expiration of the act authorizing the Bank to suspend their payments in cash?
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, he had already stated, that the repayment would take place in such proportions as occasion might require.
Mr. Grenfelldeclared, that the impression on his mind, from what had fallen from the right hon. gentleman on a recent occasion, was, that this payment was to take place, in cash or in bank notes, on the 5th of April. But now the right hon. gentleman said, it was to be paid as it might be required by the Bank; though, but two minutes before, he had stated, that it would be paid before the end of the session. By the act of 1816, an option was given to government to prolong the payment to the Bank of this loan of six millions, for three years. Did the right hon. gentleman mean to state, that if the Bank did not require the money, or if he were not disposed to pay it, he should feel justified in delaying the payment so long as that period of three years? It was not, however, entirely for the purpose of putting this question that he had risen. He rose to express his hope, that the right hon. gentleman, in raising money, would adhere to the system which had been pursued, so advantageously for the public, in the mode of issuing exchequer bills during the last five months; namely, to issue them at the
422
rate of two-pence per diem per cent, which was about equal to three per cent, per annum. If from this were deducted the premium of one per cent borne by those bills since October, it would appear that money might be raised at present at so small a rate as two per cent. This was certainly a state of things extremely advantageous. Besides the positive saving (which if the same amount of exchequer bills were issued this year as the last, would come to 5 or 600,000 l. there was another most important benefit, namely, the tendency to keep down the rate of interest of money in the country. Government being able to raise money at two per cent. must in time establish as low a rate of interest throughout the country. He was one of those who were of opinion that a low rate of interest must be highly advantageous to the community. It was in itself evidence of a state of prosperity. It stimulated national industry; it stimulated commerce; it stimulated agriculture. It afforded facilities to that great, respectable, and preponderating class, the landed interest, to raise money on the security of their estates at a moderate interest, for the improvement of their estates. During the latter periods of the late war, it was absolutely impossible for any gentleman of landed property to raise a shilling on that property at legal interest: and those who felt an imperious necessity to raise money on their estates, were compelled to do so, either by an infraction on the existing law, or by consenting to the most onerous and ruinous terms.—He wished to add a few words with respect to the discounts of the Bank of England. He had not the most remote disposition to interfere with the management of the Bank in this respect. He was far from thinking that that House had any right to interfere with the Bank respecting their rate of discount. At the same time, considering the privileges, immunities, and advantages, which the Bank derived from their connexion with government and the legislature, he hoped he should not be thought too assuming, when, as a member of that House, and with a view to the production of as low a rate of interest as possible, he suggested whether it might not be expedient and becoming in the Bank of England to reduce their rate of discount from five to four per cent. If, as a Bank proprietor, he were addressing the court of proprietors, he would recommend

423
such a measure, even on the ground of its advantage to the Bank itself, as there was little or nothing to do while the discount was maintained at 5 per cent, while, in all probability, there would be a great deal to do were the discount reduced to 4 per cent.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that the option of postponing the repayment of the six millions to the Bank for three years would not be accepted, but that they would be repaid in the course of the year. He agreed, in a great measure, with what had subsequently fallen from the hon. gentleman. It was undoubtedly very gratifying to government to be enabled to raise money on terms more advantageous than had ever before existed.
The report was then agreed to.

MOTION RESPECTING THE ROYAL BURGHS OF SCOTLAND.
Lord Archibald Hamiltonrose to make his promised motion, relative to the late transactions in the burgh of Montrose, which were likely to have so material an influence on the future situation and destiny of Scotch burghs. He said, he should commence by declaring what his intended motion was not, and then proceed to state what it was. It was not any disguised motion for parliamentary reform, nor had it any necessary connexion with that unwelcome topic. His motion would be for the production to this House of those proceedings of the privy council, which were technically called, the Act or Warrant, by which a new election of magistrates had been granted by government to the burgh of Montrose, and a radical and important alteration had been made in the old constitution of that burgh. The learned lord advocate had declared, last session, when he (lord A. H.) had supported the prayer of some Scotch petitions for parliamentary reform, that the people of Scotland were satisfied with things as they were.* Such a declaration would surely not be made now. They who had observed what had passed in that country for the last six months—who had noticed how many public meetings had been held for the sole purpose of considering the abuses and mismanagement in their burghs—who had seen how all the newspapers in that country had teemed with resolutions from the different burghs, stating the grievances
* See Vol. 35, p. 923.
424
which they actually suffered, and the helpless and cruel condition of distress and insolvency to which they were approaching—would find some difficulty in believing the learned lord's assertion of last year, that the people of Scotland were satisfied with these matters as they were.
He was convinced, that neither the noble lord opposite, nor any other member of his majesty's government, if he could be made perfectly acquainted with what had passed, and was passing, and likely to continue in the Scotch burghs, would voluntarily continue that system of fraud which wasted the resources, and of self-election in the magistrates, which eluded and defied all responsibility. He need state only one fact to show the state of things in those burghs—it was this: that the inhabitants of a burgh in Scotland, who had no voice in the appointment of the magistrates of that burgh, and no control over their conduct, were nevertheless, according to the best information he had been able to obtain, and according to the highest legal opinions, liable for whatever debts they might, in their magisterial capacity, contract. Indeed, it had been solemnly decided, within the last fifty years, both in the court of Exchequer and court of Session, that they, the said courts, had no jurisdiction against the magistrates of a burgh in questions of general account. This abuse was founded upon another still greater; namely, self-election in the magistrates—a practice contrary to all reason, sense, and justice, and to every principle of the British constitution. Indeed, it was an abuse of such a nature, when applied to a corporate body which had duties to perform, that the wit of man could not contrive a mode better calculated to produce the most domineering arrogance in these municipal governors, and, in the helpless governed, the most abject state of subjection and servility. In several burghs in Scotland, the magistrates, if they chose, were, year after year, self-elected in perpetuity. In most, the matter of election was so managed, that it amounted to the same thing. In other burghs, the magistrates were not bound to reside, and, in fact, did not reside, and were rarely seen in the burghs, whose concerns they pretended to manage, except once a year, to be reelected. All these were abuses of the most discreditable and injurious nature.

425
It was not his wish or intention, upon the present occasion, to excite any unpleasant feelings on the subject. He by no means meant any hostility to the learned lord, or the hon. gentlemen opposite. He should be very sorry if any thing he 6aid or did, should be injurious to that cause which he was anxious to serve.— It was the cause of Scotland; and, in his conscience, he believed, that in no way could he more effectually promote the best and permanent interests of that country, than by using his humble efforts to effect the destruction of this odious system of burgh-management—to annul that abominable abuse, the self-election of magistrates, and to establish the liability of those entrusted with the funds and possessions of burghs, to have their management brought to the test of strict and accurate accounts.
He would now proceed to detail the particulars of the case which had occasioned his motion. What had occurred was this:—In the course of last year, an irregular election of the magistrates took place at Montrose—it was deemed, indeed, wholly void—and thus the burgh, in its corporate capacity, had lapsed and become dormant. There existing no power within itself to revive itself, application was made, through the lord advocate, to the king in council, to re-establish the functions of the burgh, by granting what is called, a poll-election; that is, an. election of the magistrates and council by a general vote or poll of the burgesses. Thus far he had nothing to object to. But besides this poll election, the Act and Warrant of his majesty in council had taken to itself the privilege of also granting a change in the set or constitution or the burgh; and this, he contended, was an usurpation of an illegal power—and although he was ready to admit, that the alteration was an improvement, and a benefit to the burgh, yet he must object even to a benefit, if it was conferred through the medium of an usurped and unconstitutional power in the Crown. He would illustrate his meaning by reference to what cook place last session, in regard, Sir, to your predecessor in the chair. A message from the Crown was brought down to that House, soliciting the means of making provision for lord Colchester. Now, although the sense of the House was in favour of the thing to be done, there existed a very general and very just resistance to the manner of doing it; because the House
426
of Commons thought that any pecuniary remuneration to their Speaker, ought to emanate and originate from themselves. So he said with regard to Montrose. The Crown was right in reviving the dormant power of election; but if any change was to be made in the burgh itself, it ought to be made by parliament, and not by the mere will of the Crown; that is, by ministers. He would not pretend to set up his opinion in opposition to the opinion of the lord advocate, the attorney and solicitor general, and the privy council—nor did he. But he had endeavoured to avail himself of legal authority in Scotland by every means in his power; and he could find no authority, dead or living, which would sanction this extraordinary power in the Crown. Would the privy council do the same thing in other burghs under similar circumstances? What had been done, amounted to nothing more nor less than this—that the Crown took on itself to alter the constitution of a burgh in such a way, as materially to affect the representation in that House. It constituted new offices, to which the right of voting for a member of parliament was attached. Was the noble lord of opinion, that, as often as any burgh in Scotland fell into a situation similar to that in which Montrose had been placed, that such burgh might not only be revived by the Crown— to which, indeed, there was no objection— but might also be new modelled according to its pleasure? It was no argument in favour of the proceedings to say, that the new set granted to Montrose was superior to the old one. If the Crown, on its own specific authority, could give a constitution better and more enlarged than that which originally existed, it might, if it chose, under the same power, or assumption of power, give one worse and more contracted. Nay, farther, if the Crown could change the set in September last, as it had done, it could change it again in January—and again in June—and thus the form, if not the existence, of all the Scotch burghs, were dependent upon the mere will of the Crown—or rather upon the will or caprice of its ministers.
He wished to have this preliminary point settled, previous to calling the attention of the House to a more extensive consideration of the subject after Easter. What he called in question, was, the power of the Crown to alter the constitution of these burghs, and not the power of reviving their lapsed or dormant exist-
‡

427
ence. Supposing that parliament should take into consideration the grievous mismanagement and decayed state of the Scotch burghs, and should effect an amelioration of their situation, what cause would Scotland have to rejoice in such a just and beneficial measure, if, the moment afterwards, his majesty's ministers might abrogate all that had been done, by granting a new set, and making what alterations in it they pleased? There was another point to which he wished to advert. The learned lord knew very well that there was a society in Scotland called the Convention of Burghs. This convention, he believed, claimed the power by law, but certainly had in fact exercised the power of altering the constitution of several burghs. Now, if this convention had such right, and if his majesty's government had also the same right, he begged to know to which of these authorities the burghs must submit? He would ask the learned lord which of these conflicting powers were supreme, and which subordinate? Or whether they had both concurrent jurisdiction? And in the last case, if their edicts in these matters should not agree, who was to decide between them, and what was the legal remedy or appeal? Many of the burghs of Scotland were so overwhelmed with debt at this moment, that little or no revenue remained for their current expenses, and the burgesses felt considerable alarm for their own individual and private property. He believed, that according to the best authority on this point, the burgesses were liable for the debts of the burgh. And it was notorious throughout Scotland, that many of the burghs were involved in the greatest financial difficulties, and were threatened with dissolution. It had already happened in one, that no person could be persuaded to undertake the office of magistrate. Several individuals had refused to act when elected. If no political interests were concerned, he was sure that the state of long-continued abuse they had suffered, and of degradation into which they were fallen, would excite the sympathy of all parties in the House. But he would not now enlarge on that subject. He would rather say too little than too much on these collateral points. His object was, to procure a fair and candid consideration of the immediate subject before the House. He must repeat that his objection was not to the thing done, but to the manner of doing it—not
428
to the alteration of the set, but to its being done by the Crown, which he could not but think as illegal in fact, as in spirit it was unconstitutional. The noble lord concluded with moving, "That there be laid before this House, a Copy of the Actor Warrant of his Majesty in Council, dated in the month of September, 1817, authorizing the guild brethren and inhabitant burgesses in the burgh of Montrose to elect fit persons to be magistrates and town councillors of the same, and authorizing and ordering an alteration in the former set or constitution of the said burgh in all time coming."
Lord Castlereaghsaid, that the speech of the noble lord had been marked with every degree of candour; and he was very anxious as candidly to state the grounds on which he saw objections to producing the document for which the noble lord had moved. It was very true the noble lord had stated, that it was not his wish to connect the particular reform which he wished, with any general reform in the representation—that he had rather in view an improvement in the administrative than the representative character of the burghs; but though the noble lord had not opened the general question of parliamentary reform, he could not separate the subject from it. The reform which the noble lord wished, would lead to an extensive change in the burgh elections of Scotland, and, therefore, would cany reform into the representation of that part of the country. But he would contend, that there were not very strong grounds for the production of the document, even on the more limited ground of approvement in the administration of the Scots burghs. There might be defects in that administration, as there were defects in every institution; but in so far as his majesty's ministers, from being charged with the peace of the country, were acquainted with the state of the country, he could say that there was no part of the country where the population was in a sounder state than in the burghs of Scotland. Order and decorum marked the national character of Scotchmen, and no where was that order and decorum more conspicuous than in the royal burghs. There seemed, however, a defect in the law of Scotland with respect to the burghs—they had no power at present to take cognizance of the pecuniary concerns, and to enter into the subject of the administration of the funds of these burghs. But

429
this evil would be obviated by the bill, of which notice had been given by his learned friend, the lord advocate. With respect to assuming a right of taxation, he really could not conceive, that in any of the burghs the magistrates and town council would think of setting up any such arbitrary right of assessing their fellow-citizens; or that there could be any difficulty in resisting an attempt of such a nature. It was vain to think of separating the question of reform, from giving to the burgesses the faculty of electing their magistrates—the noble lord could not state any practical utility in the projected change, except with a view to a reform in the representation. The document moved for could throw no light on the general question of reform. As to the question of the legality of what had been done, he thought the House were not likely to be good judges on such a subject. Whether the charter was or was not legal according to the law of Scotland, was rather a question for the decision of a court of law, than for the decision of that House. Now, there was no individual of Montrose affected by the change who had not his legal remedy, and who might not, in a court of law, question the legality of the election of magistrates under the new charter. The question might also be brought forward in the convention of burghs-—that convention might refuse admission to the delegates from Montrose, and then the question whether that delegate had a right of admission or not, might be agitated. But the noble lord had argued, that, though the present arrangement for the burgh of Montrose was good in itself, ministers might afterwards make other arrangements of a very different character, to favour particular political views. But here, it appeared, that the act had grown out of the circumstance of the suspension of all the powers of the burgh. The relief was generally solicited—there was not one complaining party; and therefore it was unfair to consider an act called for under such circumstances, the beginning of an arbitrary system of interference with the constitutions of the burghs. It was enough to show, that in the present case the Crown had not wantonly invaded the corporate rights of the burgh. As to the question whether the Crown was authorized to act in this manner, it might come before the House in a much more suitable way than by the present motion. It was not im-
430
possible that the election of the member for the class of burghs to which Montrose belonged, might be questioned by the unsuccessful candidate, and a committee of the House, acting on their oaths, under the Grenville act, might have to dispose of it. If this motion was granted, it would go far to give countenance to the question of parliamentary reform, a question which the House ought not to entertain, without ascertaining what was specifically proposed to be done. Upon these grounds, he considered it his duty to dissent from the motion.
Mr. Abercrombysaid, that the subject brought forward by his noble friend had no connexion with that of parliamentary reform. The state of the Scotch burghs, however, was such as, in the opinion of those who were most competent to form an opinion on the subject, called imperiously for inquiry. He could not, indeed, see any connexion between such an inquiry and the subject of parliamentary reform, excepting in as far as any regulations respecting those who had a right to vote in the election of a member of parliament was connected with that subject. It was said, that it was only when the rights of the burgh were suspended, that the Crown interfered to re-animate them. But, in the case alluded to, it went farther; it altered the set altogether. If this was wrong, it was an usurpation on the part of the Crown; and though in the present instance it might have been exercised beneficially, yet it went to establish a precedent which, in the hands of bad ministers, might be made use of to justify the worst encroachments. He thought no subject more suitable for parliamentary inquiry. He thought that copies of the old and new set should be produced, that they might be able to see the alteration to find whether the Crown had improperly interfered, or whether they had interfered in such a manner as demanded parliamentary inquiry. If the Crown had improperly interfered, and no notice was taken of it, the measure would be acquiesced in and be established as a precedent. He thought the course adopted by his noble friend a proper one. It was not connected with any wild theories of parliamentary reform. If it had been he should have remained silent; but being of a different opinion, and finding that in the course of this year five or six other burghs were likely to be placed in a similar situation to that in which Montrose

431
lately stood, he thought it of very great importance that the subject should be fully discussed. He thought the circumstances of the case completely relieved his noble friend from any suspicions of being desirous of agitating the question of parliamentary reform: his noble friend wished only to resist a precedent which, though now beneficial, might be improperly applied. Having some connexion with Scotland, he was glad to hear from the noble lord a language respecting that country so different from that which he had heard from him last year—all was now tranquil, there were no secret committees, and it was all owing to the excellent magistracies of the burghs of Scotland that things went on so smoothly!
The Lord Advocatecontended, that no person in that House had ever charged Scotland with being generally disaffected —it was only Glasgow and its neighbourhood to which the charge of taking illegal oaths applied. The noble mover had said, that the magistrates and counsel of the burghs possessed an unlimited power of taxing the property of persons residing in the burgh. The noble lord had forgotten, that in the Declaration of Grievances at the Revolution, to levy money without the consent of parliament was declared contrary to law. He would ask the noble lord, if in any of these burghs which he declared to be in a state of utter insolvency, a single suit had ever been brought forward against any one of the inhabitants for payment of the debts of the community? From the Revolution downwards, with one single exception in appearance, which he should explain, no case had occurred of burgesses being liable for debts contracted by their magistrates. He knew that opinions had been given by counsel that the inhabitants were liable for the debts of the burgh; but though these opinions had been given years ago, no suit had ever been commenced on them. He could tell the noble lord, that the magistrates of some burghs had attempted to levy petty customs for the defrayment of the public debt; in Aberdeen, for instance; but the question was ultimately decided, on appeal to the House of Lords that the magistrates of burghs had no such power to levy customs. The noble lord had referred to a case decided by the barons of exchequer; but he mistook it. By an old Scotch statute, it was alleged that the barons of the exchequer were empowered to audit the accounts
432
of royal burghs; but in the case in question, the barons refused to sustain their jurisdiction. This was, however, merely a question of audit. There was hardly a year in which applications were not made to the legislature by burghs, for a power of levying money to pay debts. Surely, if an act of the town council was a sufficient authority, they would not have been so ill advised as to apply to parliament. The noble lord had stated, that the inhabitants of the Scots burghs were placed in a state of the greatest servility; but the power in magistrates and other office-bearers of appointing their successors, was not worse than the power of holding their places for life. In a great many parts of England the magistrates of boroughs were appointed for life. The noble lord would find the power exercised by the Crown in the case of the burgh of Montrose, was virtually recognized in the Declaration of Grievances. The complaint in that declaration against king James was, not for altering the constitution of burghs, but for having done so of his own authority, "without judgment, surrender, or consent." In the case of the burgh of Stirling in 1782, a similar warrant had been granted. Counsel had been heard in that case before the new constitution was granted; and afterwards, though the affairs of that burgh came before the court of session three times, and before five of six committees of election in the House of Commons, it had never been objected, that the warrant in the case of that burgh was void and null. In 1789 or 1790, there was a motion respecting the state of the Scots burghs, and in the report of a committee the modes were discussed in which alterations could be legally made by course of time, by the burghs themselves, and by the act of the Crown. The case of Stirling was referred to, and the right of altering the set, as was done in 1781 or 1782, was not questioned. That alteration in Stirling was precisely the same as that in the burgh of Montrose. There was, therefore, no ground for the allegation, that this exertion of the prerogative of the Crown was illegal. He had been asked by the noble lord, whether he intended to propose the same alteration in every burgh, which, by neglect, might be disfranchised? He should answer no. Every case must stand on its own merits. The same constitution could not possibly be applied to all the burghs, because electors, with the same

433
qualifications, could not be had in all of them, unless all the exclusive privileges, which had existed for ages, should be abolished. It was said that the question did not touch on parliamentary reform. This was true, if the question was confined to the consideration of the particular case; but if, in defiance of the act of Union, it was intended to introduce a new system of election in all the burghs, it would have the same effect as a sweeping measure of parliamentary reform [Hear! from the Opposition]. The gentlemen opposite imagined there was an inconsistency in this argument; but he contended, that the power which the Crown had enjoyed before the Union, was continued to it by that act. His assertion in the last session, that the people of Scotland were satisfied with the constitution of their burghs, he would repeat. He did not mean that they were unanimous. The Scotch were not famous for unanimity, as it was always supposed that an argument was a favourite amusement with that people. But he had no doubt the majority were satisfied, though great pains had been taken to excite a ferment. In four-fifths of the burghs there had been no meetings, and in the others the meetings had taken place among those subordinate corporate bodies, who wished to have the privilege of choosing their own deacons. He was convinced there would be a general feeling of alarm, if a general change were apprehended, and should therefore oppose the motion.
Sir James Mackintoshsaid, he should not enter into the question of parliamentary reform, nor that of dry law, which was connected with the present motion, because the present was an unfit time to discuss the one, and the House of Commons was an improper tribunal to decide on the other. He thought the motion of his noble friend had been hardly dealt with, in being considered a motion sub-6ervient to parliamentary reform. It was strange that a motion, which called in question the legality of a change in any one burgh, should be viewed as leading to universal change. This seemed a paradox, which the learned lord had chosen for the purpose of displaying his ingenuity; but in supporting it he had forgotten his arguments. The learned lord had used an argument, connected with the question of parliamentary reform, which he could not help noticing. He had said, that it was strange that those
434
who should blame the Scots burghs, did not blame the close boroughs in England. There were some close boroughs, and some in which there were rights of popular election; but in Scotland there were none of the latter description; so that, whoever supported the English constitution could not like the constitution of Scotland. In England, though the system might be, in some respects, improved, there was a variety of modes of election, which had been falsely blamed, as producing an inadequate representation; but which, on the whole, produced a representation more complete than any mode which should proceed on the basis of uniformity [Hear!]. But in Scotland there was the most perfect uniformity on an oligarchical principle. He contended, that any uniform representation was bad. Universal suffrage was, indeed, the worst of all [Hear!], if not a monstrous inconsistency with all forms of human society [Hear!]. It never existed in this country, and if it had, he should have thought its abolition the best plan of reform [Hear!]. But in Scotland there was an uniformity of the opposite kind. There was no popular election, or pretence of popular election. So that Scotland, though by the Union it enjoyed the protection of the free constitution of England, did not, in the nobler sense, participate in it. It was a gross fallacy, therefore, to compare the state of the representation in Scotland to that of England-He did not wish to speak to the dry legal question, but legal questions affecting the constitution, and particularly the rights of election, were peculiarly subjects for the consideration of that House. The question now was, whether the Crown possessed, not the power of reviving a burgh, the charter of which had been lost by intermission of elections, but whether it possessed the power of altering the constitution of it? This was a question over which "rent doubt hung. He did not mean to give an opinion on it. The right rested on a single case, that of Stirling, which had never been decided on in a court of law, or in parliament. In such a case it was the duty of the House to require information, and he should therefore vote for the motion.
Mr. J. P. Grantsaid, he should not give any opinion on the points of law discussed by the learned lord, but if the Crown had by law the power, in case of the suspension of the functions of a cov-

435
poration by accident, which might frequently happen, would it not be proper to suggest some regulations on that subject? He thought the ministers, if they saw that such cases were likely to be frequent, would themselves be apt to come to parliament to request its opinion on such a subject. The motion only went to the production of a document, and as to be knew not what horror, which the noble lord entertained, of he knew not what plan, which was connected with the motion, it was altogether unfounded. As to the quietness of the people under the present system, he had very different information from that of the learned lord. Numerous applications had been made by the court of Session to set aside the late elections, with a view to obtain disfranchisement, or to get poll elections. As to the alteration of the constitution of the burgh of Montrose, no one complained of it as it affected the inhabitants of the burgh; but if such a power came frequently to be exercised by the Crown, it should be exercised according to some general rule. He thought the question should be brought before parliament, as he did not see how it could properly be taken cognizance of in a court of law.
Sir R Fergussonsupported the motion. No one who looked at the deplorable State of the representation in Scotland, could agree in the eulogies which had been pronounced on it. The people were not in a state of fermentation, but of great anxiety for a better system, of which they had a good example in the new constitution of Montrose. He then read the parting address of the late magistrates of Aberdeen, who declared their decided opinion, that a new constitution was necessary, for the sake both of the magistrates and people. This address was written by gentlemen who had been in the uniform habit of supporting his majesty's ministers. The hope of a change in the constitution of the burghs had been fostered by the commissioners at Montrose, one of whom, the sheriff of Perthshire, praised the liberal constitution which the paternal government of the country had given them, and adduced it as a proof that the ministers were willing to effect reform when reform was necessary. He hoped his majesty's ministers would act up to the liberal ideas which were thus praised by their warmest adherents.
Lord Archibald Hamiltonrose to reply.—He observed, that the learned lord had
436
not met the question fairly, but had justified what was now done at Montrose by what had been done at Stirling in 1781; and by the same rule, what had now been done at Montrose, would form a precedent for any similar transaction next year, in any other burgh. The question, however, still returned—whether the Crown had legally the power to alter by its own authority the constitution of a burgh—how it pleased—when it pleased—and, as often as it pleased? The question was certainly worthy of being settled, and if the Crown had any such legal power, even under circumstances similar to those of Montrose, he meant, when an alteration was requested by the burgh itself; the consequence must be fatal to the stability of the burghs even under any improvement they might receive; for, if such change might be made, the influence of the Crown was so great, throughout Scotland, that it might easily procure an application to be made for alteration in almost every one of the Scotch burghs, at such times as its ministers conceived to be convenient. The learned lord had maintained very positively that the burgesses were not liable for the debts contracted by the magistrates. He had heard the opposite opinion affirmed by legal authority, quite as good as that of the lord advocate. He did not wish now to argue that point any farther. He apprehended, however, that the declaration of the learned lord's opinion this night, would alarm the creditors of some burghs; and bring these claims and their other municipal concerns to a speedy crisis. One thing, however, he must pointedly remark; it was this, that although the learned lord had denied that the burgesses at large were liable for the debts of the burgh, he had taken care to avoid stating who were liable. Surely, the creditors were not wholly without remedy or redress. The learned lord, too, had disputed the fact of the dilapidation and ruin of the burgh funds. Here his lordship read a statement of the condition of Aberdeen, to prove the mismanagement of the burgh funds; which he said he had received from unquestionable authority: "Aberdeen had once been one of the richest corporations in Scotland; its funds were now dissipated, and its corporate managers had farther contracted a debt of 230,000 l. They had, during a few years past, borrowed 57,000 l. to pay the interest of their debt. The magistrates were ex-officio managers of the charities in

437
the neighbourhood, and they had borrowed these funds, and thus involved these charitable institutions in the general wreck. They had taken up money of every Kirk session that would lend them. At the last election only two persons could be found to accept the office of councillors; there exists now only six, instead of nineteen, that is, four under a quorum qualified to act. The citizens have now an action before the court of session, by which they hope to disfranchise the burgh, with the view of obtaining a new set."He appealed to an hon. member present (Mr. Forbes) if this was not substantially correct. Similar facts, to a greater or less extent, might be adduced in the case of all the royal burghs in Scotland, as he could prove before a committee of the House. Well as he was acquainted with the gross abuses existing in Scotch burghs, and their general prevalence, still he had been surprised, since the time he had given notice of this motion, by the numerous representations he had received of facts new to him, offered to be substantiated by proofs, and of complaints of grievous injury', and impending ruin, all tending to establish the same point; the cruel, ruinous, and oppressive mismanagement of the burghs. The general subject, however, was not now before the House, and though he foresaw, plainly, that his present motion was to be negatived, he would take an opportunity after Easter of bringing this very questionable power of the Crown to alter the set of a burgh again, under the consideration of the House, along with a more extended view of this important subject.
Mr. Forbesstated, that the burgh was involved in some difficulties by the purchase of a large quantity of ground which for some years they could not let out on building leases, but even under their difficulties they were only 1,400 l. short of the whole interest on the sum due. There were generally two sides to a question, and he believed the noble lord had only got hold of one. For the last few years the affairs of the burgh had been in a progressive state of improvement.
Mr. W. Smithsaid, that the revenues of the town of Aberdeen were 1,400 l. short of the sum necessary to pay the interest of their debt.
Mr. Douglassaid, that the embarrassments of the burgh were so far removed as to leave a sinking fund of 300 l. a year after the payment of its debts.
The motion was negatived without a division.